In which case maybe we should turn the commons in to the English parliament and the Lords in to the federal parliament. Kill two birds with one stone.
Yep a federal system seems likely in the future if the Scots vote NO I think ... 40%+ Scots who want independence wont just go away, certainly not if London doesn't implement Devo Max and all its now promising.
What about city Mayors, not every city decided to have one?
I suppose we could go back to Kingdoms?
England will have both Labour and Conservative governments. Scotland was too remote and really needed a capital that was closer to its regions.
The worse scenario for the north would be indefinite Labour rule. They would just take them for granted. In Liverpool Labour takes it for granted that they will get elected and the Conservatives know they have no chance of winning, so the city is neglected by both sides.
This is where UKIP comes in.
I think it can save the north and become a uniting factor in the whole of the UK , by its devolution and referenda plans.
Not at all I'm a proud Irish republican but Dublin cannot afford to pay that 10bln pounds London gives Belfast to run the place - NI is totally different to Scotland, it will never be self sufficient.
Not at all I'm a proud Irish republican but Dublin cannot afford to pay that 10bln pounds London gives Belfast to run the place - NI is totally different to Scotland, it will never be self sufficient.
*sigh*
Great
Now what the hell is England supposed to do with Northern Ireland???
Not at all I'm a proud Irish republican but Dublin cannot afford to pay that 10bln pounds London gives Belfast to run the place - NI is totally different to Scotland, it will never be self sufficient.
Not at all I'm a proud Irish republican but Dublin cannot afford to pay that 10bln pounds London gives Belfast to run the place - NI is totally different to Scotland, it will never be self sufficient.
In all truth you should have NI as it is Irish and if the UK broke up your government would take it on, no doubt.
If the result is No then further devolution is of course still a distinct possibility though the UK government would hold the better cards in any negotiations on that. The main issue would be finanical such as taxation policies and spending budgets and any significant changes in those would have to be reflected in UK funding to Scotland.
Sorry but why should the Scots get special treatment and devolution
Because on two seperate occassions, the majority of those who voted in the Scottish devolution referenda said 'yes' to devolution: in 1979 and again in 1997.
In all truth you should have NI as it is Irish and if the UK broke up your government would take it on, no doubt.
Northern Ireland costs a lot of money to run. I read somewhere that for every pound that's spent on running public services in Northern Ireland, only 50p is covered by taxes raised locally. The difference is made up by grants from the government in London.
Given their own parlous financially state, the Republic of Ireland does not want the financial responsibility of taking on Northern Ireland. In any case, as a result of the Good Friday Agreement, anyone in Northern Ireland can hold a Repuiblic of Ireland passport and some Northern Irelanders do.
So people in Northern Ireland can now choose to have the best of both worlds: have passport issued by the Dublin government and public services funded by the London government.
Now what the hell is England supposed to do with Northern Ireland???
I wonder if UAE want to buy it.
If you want to give us up, maybe you can reimburse us all the money our worlds biggest shipyard made for the whole country over the decades? Oh and maybe we would like to take all our ships back too that WE built that currently sail in the Royal Navy.
Oh and maybe if a time machine is ever invented, we can go back and see how much of Britain would have been invaded by the Nazis if we hadn't kept them off your damn door from the Atlantic.
Peter Hain says that on legislation such as Education, which affects England only after Devo max, only English MP's should scrutinise it at committee stage. However he also said that all MP's including the Scottish ones should vote on the legislation in the chamber.
How on earth can he seriously justify that? I know his party loses out but they started the devolution process.
Fortunately John Redwood said absolutely no, that was not acceptable. One thing the all seem to agree on. Whether its yes or no politics in the UK will never be the same again.
The Newsnight suggestions were daft - the only acceptable constitutional solution is a new English parliament separate from Westminster and preferably located in another city. It's ludicrous to have Westminster MPs split into two different layers sitting in the same chamber with different powers. Just do what every other federal state has and have a separate federal capital, it's really not rocket science.
Devo max just means further weakening of the Union. It's a weird strategy. "Saving" the union by salami-slicing it even more.
I'm inclined to think that the whole shebang should be dealt with in one go and Scotland should vote yes and get it done, once and for all. Instead of voting no and getting devo max, which will leave us with the unhappy compromise of Scotland technically being in the UK but the Union being slowly dissolved in installments.
The Newsnight suggestions were daft - the only acceptable constitutional solution is a new English parliament separate from Westminster and preferably located in another city.
Definitely, yes. And all the Assemblies/Parliaments having the same powers.
The Newsnight suggestions were daft - the only acceptable constitutional solution is a new English parliament separate from Westminster and preferably located in another city. It's ludicrous to have Westminster MPs split into two different layers sitting in the same chamber with different powers. Just do what every other federal state has and have a separate federal capital, it's really not rocket science.
Yes, but most MP's only attend the debates their interested in now anyway. Apart from PMQ's the chamber is never full. Legislation is scheduled for debate and voting, so it does not seem to be too difficult a task for the parliament authorities to rearrange the schedule so English and UK legislation are grouped together. It might work better with travelling long distances if they did alternate weeks though.
As was explained its perfectly feasible to have separate education secretary's for example.
What definitely was not acceptable was Peter Hain's suggestion that Scottish MP's can vote on English only legislation, when English MP's can not vote on devolved legislation.
As for the regions, Non London MP's will easily outnumber London MP's. There wont be permanent Tory governments, but we will have majority's again. If Scotland has made up its mind to only vote for left wing parties forever, no matter what the Tory's offer them, then that is not very good for democracy. They are better off separate.
I do take the point about a general election though. Do people vote for England or the UK?
Devo max just means further weakening of the Union. It's a weird strategy. "Saving" the union by salami-slicing it even more.
I'm inclined to think that the whole shebang should be dealt with in one go and Scotland should vote yes and get it done, once and for all. Instead of voting no and getting devo max, which will leave us with the unhappy compromise of Scotland technically being in the UK but the Union being slowly dissolved in installments.
In a way we might be better to just change from a union to federalism. The UK parliament / government would defend us and uses it's extra weight to deal with foreign affairs, i.e. all external matters. The English parliament and government would deal with all internal matters.
As for location I suppose the Isle of Man seems the ideal location for a federal parliament and Westminster for the English one. Situating it in England would not go down well.
On the other hand the federal one could be Westminster with the English one in York or somewhere like that. All the other countries will have their parliaments in their capitals though so England would probably want the same.
The more I analyse this the more complicated it seems to get.
Comments
I have my heart set on getting rid of Scotland
Then just Northern Ireland and Wales to go, and England is finally free
Don't disappoint me.
This is where UKIP comes in.
I think it can save the north and become a uniting factor in the whole of the UK , by its devolution and referenda plans.
You mean.....you DON'T want it?
*sigh*
Great
Now what the hell is England supposed to do with Northern Ireland???
I wonder if UAE want to buy it.
OK how about this.
The Irish republic buys Northern Ireland, but can pay via installments?
Shall we say....one billion a year, for all eternity?
In all truth you should have NI as it is Irish and if the UK broke up your government would take it on, no doubt.
Because on two seperate occassions, the majority of those who voted in the Scottish devolution referenda said 'yes' to devolution: in 1979 and again in 1997.
Because in the Scottish elections of 2011, the Scottish Nationalist Party was elected.
Northern Ireland costs a lot of money to run. I read somewhere that for every pound that's spent on running public services in Northern Ireland, only 50p is covered by taxes raised locally. The difference is made up by grants from the government in London.
Given their own parlous financially state, the Republic of Ireland does not want the financial responsibility of taking on Northern Ireland. In any case, as a result of the Good Friday Agreement, anyone in Northern Ireland can hold a Repuiblic of Ireland passport and some Northern Irelanders do.
So people in Northern Ireland can now choose to have the best of both worlds: have passport issued by the Dublin government and public services funded by the London government.
If you want to give us up, maybe you can reimburse us all the money our worlds biggest shipyard made for the whole country over the decades? Oh and maybe we would like to take all our ships back too that WE built that currently sail in the Royal Navy.
Oh and maybe if a time machine is ever invented, we can go back and see how much of Britain would have been invaded by the Nazis if we hadn't kept them off your damn door from the Atlantic.
You should be a bit more grateful.
Peter Hain says that on legislation such as Education, which affects England only after Devo max, only English MP's should scrutinise it at committee stage. However he also said that all MP's including the Scottish ones should vote on the legislation in the chamber.
How on earth can he seriously justify that? I know his party loses out but they started the devolution process.
Fortunately John Redwood said absolutely no, that was not acceptable. One thing the all seem to agree on. Whether its yes or no politics in the UK will never be the same again.
I'm inclined to think that the whole shebang should be dealt with in one go and Scotland should vote yes and get it done, once and for all. Instead of voting no and getting devo max, which will leave us with the unhappy compromise of Scotland technically being in the UK but the Union being slowly dissolved in installments.
Yes, but most MP's only attend the debates their interested in now anyway. Apart from PMQ's the chamber is never full. Legislation is scheduled for debate and voting, so it does not seem to be too difficult a task for the parliament authorities to rearrange the schedule so English and UK legislation are grouped together. It might work better with travelling long distances if they did alternate weeks though.
As was explained its perfectly feasible to have separate education secretary's for example.
What definitely was not acceptable was Peter Hain's suggestion that Scottish MP's can vote on English only legislation, when English MP's can not vote on devolved legislation.
As for the regions, Non London MP's will easily outnumber London MP's. There wont be permanent Tory governments, but we will have majority's again. If Scotland has made up its mind to only vote for left wing parties forever, no matter what the Tory's offer them, then that is not very good for democracy. They are better off separate.
I do take the point about a general election though. Do people vote for England or the UK?
What about the Lords, what happens to them?
In a way we might be better to just change from a union to federalism. The UK parliament / government would defend us and uses it's extra weight to deal with foreign affairs, i.e. all external matters. The English parliament and government would deal with all internal matters.
As for location I suppose the Isle of Man seems the ideal location for a federal parliament and Westminster for the English one. Situating it in England would not go down well.
On the other hand the federal one could be Westminster with the English one in York or somewhere like that. All the other countries will have their parliaments in their capitals though so England would probably want the same.
The more I analyse this the more complicated it seems to get.
That would be a really simple quick solution and save years of trying to manage four different levels of devolution and a union.
For many reasons a UK government has to be in London but an English Parliament does not have to be